Apparently, nobody on Team Trump, including counsel Rudy Giuliani, seems to think he should learn the facts before going on television to discuss them and make pronouncements about Donald Trump’s legal situation.

After his two disastrousappearances discussing the Stormy Daniels case on Fox News earlier this week turned into a bonanza for late-night comics, Giuliani was back on Fox tonight, this time visiting the Justice with Judge Jeanine show. Pirro, the ex-wife of a felon rumored to be a mobster – but who was also on retainer by Trump, went on a diatribe about the Mueller investigation before bringing on Giuliani. Presumably he was there for some Republican Rehab as well as a further effort to undermine Mueller and help Trump avoid the same fate as Pirro’s husband.

“Attorney General Sessions should step up and dismiss this entire investigation,” was one obviously pre-scripted line.

“There is no evidence of collusion with the Russians. Gone,” was another. Actually there is a mountain of evidence of collusion, as New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait clearly lays out. Pirro, of course, didn't mention it. But this is not the first time legal-eagle Pirro ignored a mountain of evidence in favor of Trump.

Pirro politely asked Giuiani about “what happened this week" as an opener for his rehab.

“The end result is real simple,” Giuliani said, “That’s all we’re interested in.” That, of course, begs the question as to how he managed to repeatedly botch it in his previous statements. “That case should be dismissed by the Southern District of New York,” Giuliani announced. Too bad, Giuliani may have already exposed Trump to new legal peril.

Predictably, Pirro did not mention any of those inconvenient facts, either. “Did you misspeak or did people not interpret what you were saying?” she helpfully asked. “Were you talking about the facts or were you talking about the law?”

Giuliani’s answer sounded pre-scripted by Trump and his lawyers. Even so, it was hard to swallow.

GIULIANI: I’m talking about the law and the conclusion. The facts – the facts, I’m still learning. This is 1.2 million documents. I’ve been in the case for two weeks, virtually one day in comparison to other people so I’m not an expert on the facts yet. I’m gettin’ there. But I am an expert on the law, particularly the campaign finance law. I’ve lived under it running for president. And the fact is, there is no way this is a campaign finance violation of any kind, nor was it a loan. It was an expenditure and this expenditure would have been made whether he was running for president or he wasn’t running for president and we can show that from the history of these two gentlemen. And Mr. Cohen has probably been the worst treated – and Mr. Manafort – in this case. The raids on their house – Comey got really offended when I said it was storm trooper tactics. I think the judge basically said that, maybe a little more eloquently than I did. But after all, I’m a litigator in there, fighting for my client and some of the people around him.

That’s a lot of certainty from someone who claims to be “virtually one day” on the case and “not an expert” on the facts. And what lawyer can be certain of the law without knowing the facts, anyway?